Re: someone working to add merge?

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I agree --- an implementation that needs to use a table lock is
> > useless, and one with no primary key is too hard to implement and
> > also near useless.
> 
> Well, there were just a couple of people saying the opposite.
> 
> > I have update the TODO item to reflect this:
> >
> >     * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE/DELETE, or on failure, INSERT
> >       (rules, triggers?)
> >
> >       To implement this cleanly requires that the table have a unique
> > index so duplicate checking can be easily performed.
> 
> We're still trying to work out the semantic relationship between MERGE 
> and REPLACE and what-we-actually-want.  This entry doesn't seem to take 
> that into account.

Right.  Once we are done I will update it.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073